Gaza, Israel, Hamas, etc

117 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2009-01-01 11:58

Objective Observer

Hamas cannot win militarily in any conflict with Israel, yet they launch thousands of rockets against Israeli civilians, killing maybe 8. Israel predictably responds with overwhelming military force. This was bound to happen, so why did Hamas do it?

The blockade. True that Israel is blockading the Gaza Strip, but do unguided rockets resolve that issue? They don't, at least not directly. The Hamas rockets are used SOLELY to provoke Israel into an air and possibly a ground offensive that will kill hundreds of Gazans. THEN the world will take notice that people are dying and force a settlement. That settlement will be an end to Israeli airstrikes and a promise from Hamas to cease rockets attacks against Israel. This agreement will hold for about a month or so then Hamas will renew its rocket attacks.

Why is Israel blockading the Gaza Strip? Because Hamas was bringing in weapons and material to build rockets to hit Israel.

When did this start? After Israel ended its occupation of Gaza about 5 years ago.

Why did they end their occupation? As part of the "peace Agreement" with the PA.

What's the solution? There are a few options. Israel can withdraw back to pre-1967 borders in the hope that the people on the other side won't keep lobbing rockets into their country. Based on past experiences like the Gaza withdrawal, that's not too likely.

Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, but the world won't like that so it's probably not an option.

Hamas can stop launching rockets for real, and Israel can end the blockade for real. Again based on past experience Hamas will probably be the first to break the ceasefire and the cycle will begin again.

On a side note, the world really didn't take much notice of the Hamas rockets over the past year. There were no demonstrations outside the UN or PA missions when this was going on and Israelis were being killed. No comments from any Canadian politicians prior to the latest Israeli action. But once they did comment, they were very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself against these rockets.

Thu, 2009-01-01 12:22

al-Qa'bong

"On a side note, the world really didn't take much notice of the Hamas rockets over the past year. There were no demonstrations outside the UN or PA missions when this was going on and Israelis were being killed."

Were any Israelis being killed over the past year? I heard that a couple were slightly injured, and that a few dozen were visibly upset. How many Palestinians were killed by the Zionists during that time?

A just solution would be a unified bi-national Palestine, with every resident having equal citizenship, and with those who have been dispossessed being granted recognition and compensation, which may include the right to go home.

Thu, 2009-01-01 12:38

Unionist

Welcome, Troll #16904. Yes, of course Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, just as the U.S. imagined it could have bombed Viet Nam to dust. But the U.S. and its puppets (the survivors, that is) had to drag their sorry posteriors out before having them shot off. So it will be with the Israeli mass murderers.

Hope you enjoyed your visit.

Thu, 2009-01-01 13:04

Jingles

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein01012009.html]If Hamas did not Exist[/url]

Quote:
The destruction of Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel will accept no authority in the Palestinian territories that it does not ultimately control. Any individual, leader, faction or movement that fails to accede to Israel’s demands or that seeks genuine sovereignty and the equality of all nations in the region; any government or popular movement that demands the applicability of international humanitarian law and of the universal declaration of human rights for its own people will be unacceptable for the Jewish State

Quote:
Through the home demolitions, the assaults on civil society that attempted to cast Palestinian history and culture into a chasm of oblivion; through the unspeakable destruction of the refugee camp sieges and infrastructure bombardments of the second Intifada, through assassinations and summary executions, past the grandiose farce of disengagement and up to the nullification of free, fair and democratic Palestinian elections Israel has made its view known again and again in the strongest possible language, the language of military might, of threats, intimidation, harassment, defamation and degradation.

Thu, 2009-01-01 13:37

Hoodeet

read Jennifer Loewenstein's piece "If Hamas did not exist" -

www.counterpunch.org

And
it would be helpful to have rabble-rousers (even trolls) post
references to useful readings rather than occupy the space simply with
our own opinions and the all too frequent ad hominem mudslinging.

Thu, 2009-01-01 13:44

Jingles

That's the story I linked to, Hoodeet. The first sentence. Where it says "If Hamas did not exist". That's a link.

Thank you, Babble software that makes links invisible.

Thu, 2009-01-01 13:50

aka Mycroft

This was written and published on YNet (the web service of Yediot Ahronot
which is a mainstream, some would say conservative, mass Israeli
newspaper) before the Gaza attack and after a Hamas demo earlier this
month. It's quite instructive as far as Israel's role in building Hamas:

Hamas rally our fault: Israeli officials who endorsed Hamas’ creation should be held accountable

Quote:

This rally is our fault. This rally, where hundreds of young children sang songs of hate against the “Zionist enemy,” and where thousands of angry arms were waved while calling for revenge on Israel, and where we saw the horrifying “show” depicting Gilad Shalit – all of this is our responsibility.

It is the fault of the 1987 Israeli government and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. It is the fault of former Shin Bet Director Yaakov Peri, as well as other anonymous figures who again came up with the brilliant conception:

We need to split the Palestinian nation, and in order to do that, Israel will secretly support and turn a blind eye to a new movement, an arm of the Islamic Brotherhood: Hamas. What an ingenuous move that was.

Israel turned a blind eye to money transferred to the Gaza Strip; it turned a blind eye as Hamas was being established 21 years ago this week. Why?

Because the powerful Israel was unable to cope with the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization. The powerful Israel was unable to stand up to the Fatah movement or the first Intifada, which was merely a popular uprising, so Israel invented, or in fact renewed, a conception that was in existence for many years yet never proved itself: We shall support Palestinian opposition organizations, thereby splitting the nation and weakening the strong parties.

For this reason, the Hamas rally Sunday is our responsibility. Because we thought, while displaying great creativity, that if we eliminate Fatah heads in Tunis we will be able to eliminate the national Palestinian struggle. And so, we eliminated Abu Iyad and Abu Jihad, yet wonder of wonders, it turned out they were the pragmatic and moderate ones among the Palestinian leadership. The PLO was not eliminated; rather, it became stronger. The Intifada did not die off; rather, it grew stronger.

Quote:

So let’s see all those wise people, who formulated the various conceptions, and still think that if only they eliminate all of Hamas’ leaders the entire Strip will join the Zionist movement. Let’s have them explain to us why they did what they did, and how come, despite the conception, things turned out the opposite of what they had hoped for. Yet they are not explaining. They merely want to gain our trust again. Yet we must not grant them this trust, because this rally is their fault.

Thu, 2009-01-01 13:58

Hoodeet

I apologize in advance if I'm breaking protocol by replying to
something from another thread which I can't access to reply. It's
on the same topic.

Reply to Unionist re. my observation about "ad hominem" attacks.

Happy
new year, Unionist, and I take your point. But it still is a
personal (ad hominem) attack to criticize people's positions by calling
them pricks and other such things. I simply advocate attacking
ideas and positions freely, without falling into the moralizing posture
implied in a reluctance to keep ideas separate from character.
Call it a personal preference, if you will. I find that the
spittle and the bile kind of obscure the dialogue - and the
picture - because they raise the emotional pitch, hamstringing
the rational development of ideas. We don't call it blind
rage for nothing.

Believe me, I have a huge cache of choice words
I'd like to sling around, but I think it would serve only for me to
vent and to raise the collective anger unnecessarily.

Perhaps
I'm asking for politeness in dealing with intruder trolls and with
others of the leftish persuasion, or simply for some maturity, because
I spent too much of my life around pseudo-adults for whom ideological
disagreement usually took the form of insults, dismissiveness and
contempt; there rarely if ever was a constructive outcome.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:09

Michelle

I agree with Hoodeet. I completely disagree with the opening post, but considering that there is a wide range of points of view on the left about the Israel-Palestine situation, we're not going to throw people off babble for posting what "Objective Observer" did. If he starts posting racist stuff about Palestinians, then fine, we'll toss him, just as we toss babblers who post anti-semitic stuff.

Until then, I would appreciate it if people would not resort to namecalling. If you have a problem with something someone has written, alert a moderator. (Since oldgoat and I are officially on vacation, then contact jrose until tomorrow - jrose AT rabble DOT ca - but I just happen to be reading this for interest now, and thought I'd intervene early in the thread before it got ugly.)

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:10

#10

Unionist

Hoodeet, this is a progressive anti-imperialist anti-racist anti-misogynist anti-homophobic discussion board. I don't call people names at work or in the community or on the street. But here, this is a space where freedom is consciously and deliberately denied to those who do not share some very very basic leanings - a space where we do not have to start every discussion from square one, as we often need to do in the outside world.

My experience is that when someone registers on babble, doesn't say "hello", and in her/his very first post starts justifying the Israeli carpetbombing of Gaza - it is almost 99% certain that this is the same person, under a different alias, who was just banned 5 minutes or the day before.

These individuals know what this site is and that their stands are anathema to those who post here. When they come back and post notwithstanding, it is like the prick/asshole/degenerate who stands in the street outside your window for the tenth time shouting "Long Live George W. Bush!", invoking freedom of speech. You are entitled to throw your shoes at them until they can be removed by the garbage collectors.

We do not look for engagement with such provocateurs. We identify them quickly and wait for sanitation to remove them. That is the only "constructive outcome" possible.

I don't really feel like debating this point much more. If this site were open to every creep and monster that felt like spewing vomit here, it would lose its character as a progressive space and become redundant. I am not the only habitué who would look for another place to hang out. I get enough of that shit in daily life, the MSM, TV, the workplace, the grocery store... Lots of time and place to practise arguing with fascists. This is a place for progressives to plot together how to go out into that world and change it for the better.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:13

#11

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

I agree with Hoodeet.

I absolutely do not - nor with you - but if this is a moderator's decision, I will of course comply with it. I just want to note the unusual number of new posters whose first post is of this nature.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:25

#12

melovesproles

Quote:
Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, but the world won't like that so it's probably not an option.

I don´t understand how that statement isn´t loaded full of racism and hate. The only reason bombing the most populated area in the world to "dust" is "probably" not the best solution is that the world won´t like it?

I thought Unionist was being polite.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:34

#13

Objective Observer

Michelle wrote:

I completely disagree with the opening post,

Is there anything in particular you disagree with? I believe I've been quite even-handed in laying out the current situation, at least from my point of view.

But that's really beside the point, which is how does this conflict actually come to a conclusion. The prevalent attitude seems to be that if Israel just withdrew to some previous version of its border and allowed all the descendants of the Palestinians who were expelled in the 1940s to return, then all would be well. Unfortunately this would have the practical effect of destroying "Israel". It would not end Judaism, far from it. But the character, the founding purpose of Israel would be impossible to maintain.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:37

#14

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Now on to the reality of the situation - racism and Israeli Apartheid:

Quote:
As we are about to celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's
birthday, let us remember what he said. He said that the United States is the
greatest purveyor of violence on the planet. And guess what: we experienced a
little bit of that violence, because the weapons that are being used by Israel
are weapons that were supplied by the United States government.

McKinney to Obama: “Say Something” About Gaza Humanitarian Crisis

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:39

#15

Objective Observer

melovesproles wrote:

Quote:
Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, but the world won't like that so it's probably not an option.

I don´t understand how that statement isn´t loaded full of racism and hate. The only reason bombing the most populated area in the world to "dust" is "probably" not the best solution is that the world won´t like it?

I thought Unionist was being polite.

A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:

"Nuke the Knesset"

I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:41

#16

Objective Observer

Frustrated Mess wrote:

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Israel is not a race-based state. You don't need to be of a certain 'race' to be a citizen of Israel.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:42

#17

Cueball

Jingles wrote:

That's the story I linked to, Hoodeet. The first sentence. Where it says "If Hamas did not exist". That's a link.

Thank you, Babble software that makes links invisible.

I make it a policy to bold my links.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:43

#18

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

The Knesset is an institution that represents and perpetuates official Israeli racism and brutality. It is not a people. Nevertheless, many Babblers have asked Martin to remove the tag line.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:46

#19

Cueball

Objective Observer wrote:
Frustrated Mess wrote:

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Israel is not a race-based state. You don't need to be of a certain 'race' to be a citizen of Israel.

That will be a relief for all those Arabs who are not allowed on Jewish only roads in the West Bank. I am sure there are going to be some red faces in the IDF, when I send them my blistering letter, explaining to them that they have been applying the wrong traffic control policy all these years.

Or are you saying that "Arabs" are not a race?

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:50

#20

Unionist

My, what an educational de-bait; oh, sorry for the misspelling.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:53

#21

Cueball

Objective Observer wrote:
melovesproles wrote:

Quote:
Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, but the world won't like that so it's probably not an option.

I don´t understand how that statement isn´t loaded full of racism and hate. The only reason bombing the most populated area in the world to "dust" is "probably" not the best solution is that the world won´t like it?

I thought Unionist was being polite.

A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:

"Nuke the Knesset"

I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...

You are absurd. In the one case you claim that Israel is not a "race-based" state, then in another you say nuking the Knesset would be "racist." Why would nuking the parlimentary body of non-racially based state, be racist?

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:57

#22

Objective Observer

Cueball wrote:
Objective Observer wrote:
melovesproles wrote:

Quote:
Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, but the world won't like that so it's probably not an option.

I don´t understand how that statement isn´t loaded full of racism and hate. The only reason bombing the most populated area in the world to "dust" is "probably" not the best solution is that the world won´t like it?

I thought Unionist was being polite.

A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:

"Nuke the Knesset"

I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...

You are absurd. In the one case you claim that Israel is not a "race-based" state, then in another you say nuking the Knesset would be "racist." Why would nuking the parlimentary body of non-racially based state, be racist?

I was replying in a rather sarcastic way to melovesproles' views regarding hypotheticals. It had nothing to do with my later statement, which I still stand by, that Israel is not a race-based state.

Thu, 2009-01-01 14:57

#23

KenS

I suppose I fall somewhere in between Michele and Unionist on the protocol questions. But in the end I endorse what Unionist said about why not to bother replying.

But even if some people are little more than trolls, I'm one of those who has never liked the labelling of people as trolls.

I found Ohara's posting of the propaganda from Ynet the most offensive thing here. And told him he should just get out- that even replies to the offensive crap would just make people angrier. Ohara is a long time poster- hardly the stereotypical troll.

While I agree with Uniousist that given the circumstances we are not obligated to be civil, or to repeat replies for the thousandth time, there is a pragmatic case for replying at least occassionaly to the "moderate" self styled critical supporters of Israel and others who think Hamas should be compelled by allies to "stand down".

Read the piece by Jennifer Lowenstein linked above.

I'm going to expand a bit one of the quotes above:

Quote:
Israel, with the unconditional and approving support of the United States, has made it dramatically clear to the entire world over and over and over again, repeating in action after action that it will accept no viable Palestinian state next to its borders. What will it take for the rest of us to hear? What will it take to end the criminal silence of the ‘international community’? What will it take to see past the lies and indoctrination to what is taking place before us day after day in full view of the eyes of the world? The more horrific the actions on the ground, the more insistent are the words of peace. To listen and watch without hearing or seeing allows the indifference, the ignorance and complicity to continue and deepens with each grave our collective shame.

The destruction of Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel will accept no authority in the Palestinian territories that it does not ultimately control. Any individual, leader, faction or movement that fails to accede to Israel’s demands or that seeks genuine sovereignty and the equality of all nations in the region; any government or popular movement that demands the applicability of international humanitarian law and of the universal declaration of human rights for its own people will be unacceptable for the Jewish State

If you pay ANY attention to the patterns, the issue is not the rockets fired.

When Yasser Arafat did not accept Ehud Barrack's final offer Israel set about provoking the Second Intifadah and then systematically destroyed the infrastructure of the PLA government and entire physical and social infrastructure.

"Don't want to play the game within what we have determined the rules will be? Then we destroy you."

The same thing with Hamas. If the rockets stopped Israel would not stop destroying Hamas. They killed and jailed the moderate differentiated non military leaderhsip of Hamas first. And they would not stop until what is left of Hamas is led by people who are willing to limit themselves to 'negotiating' over what manner of submission to Israels endless stream of shifting goalpost diktats.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:01

#24

Objective Observer

Cueball wrote:
Objective Observer wrote:
Frustrated Mess wrote:

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Israel is not a race-based state. You don't need to be of a certain 'race' to be a citizen of Israel.

Or are you saying that "Arabs" are not a race?

Good question, but off topic. Maybe you should start a thread about that.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:01

#25

KenS

So Israel is a not a formally race based state that practices the complete disposeession, suppression and apartheid separation of a race.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:02

#26

Cueball

Then why does the IDF monitor many roads in the West Bank to prevent Arabs driving on them?

I rather enjoy the presence of the few regular apologists for Israel that have the guts to appear. Their numbers, and activity, seem much reduced, since the latest blatant atrocity. Obviously, only the most stalwart idealogues and the delusional have the temerity to try and put lipstick on this.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:05

#27

Cueball

Objective Observer wrote:
Cueball wrote:
Objective Observer wrote:
Frustrated Mess wrote:

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Israel is not a race-based state. You don't need to be of a certain 'race' to be a citizen of Israel.

Or are you saying that "Arabs" are not a race?

Good question, but off topic. Maybe you should start a thread about that.

No. Its a stupid question. And no, it is not at all worthy of a thread. Race is, as we know, a socially constructed concept. This fact does not change the fact that "race" however it is socially constructed has tangible impacts in social intercourse.

For example, the IDF applies policies that prevent Arabs from driving on many road in the West Bank.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:07

#28

Cueball

Objective Observer wrote:
Cueball wrote:
Objective Observer wrote:
melovesproles wrote:

Quote:
Israel can bomb Gaza and the West Bank and Golan Heights to dust, but the world won't like that so it's probably not an option.

I don´t understand how that statement isn´t loaded full of racism and hate. The only reason bombing the most populated area in the world to "dust" is "probably" not the best solution is that the world won´t like it?

I thought Unionist was being polite.

A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:

"Nuke the Knesset"

I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...

You are absurd. In the one case you claim that Israel is not a "race-based" state, then in another you say nuking the Knesset would be "racist." Why would nuking the parlimentary body of non-racially based state, be racist?

I was replying in a rather sarcastic way to melovesproles' views regarding hypotheticals. It had nothing to do with my later statement, which I still stand by, that Israel is not a race-based state.

So nuking the Knesset would not be racist, then?

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:11

#29

Unionist

KenS wrote:
So Israel is a not a formally race based state that practices the complete disposeession, suppression and apartheid separation of a race.

Since this is the New Elbbab, let's start with first principles.

Remember the 750,000 Arabs who were expelled from Palestine in 1948? And their descendants?

They could all return tomorrow.

All they have to do is undergo an Israel-recognized conversion to Judaism! Then, under the Israeli "Law of Return", they immediately become citizens! They might not get their land and homes back, but hey, first come, first served.

See, it's not race-based at all!

It's de-mock-race-y!

You people are being way too hard on this legitimate expression of left-wing thought about the Middle East.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:12

#30

Objective Observer

Cueball wrote:
Objective Observer wrote:
Cueball wrote:
Objective Observer wrote:
Frustrated Mess wrote:

You mean it would end the reality of a race-based state? Good. All such states should have ended with African Aparthied.

Israel is not a race-based state. You don't need to be of a certain 'race' to be a citizen of Israel.

Or are you saying that "Arabs" are not a race?

Good question, but off topic. Maybe you should start a thread about that.

No. Its a stupid question. And no, it is not at all worthy of a thread. Race is, as we know, a socially constructed concept. This fact does not change the fact that "race" however it is socially constructed has tangible impacts in social intercourse.

For example, the IDF applies policies that prevent Arabs from driving on many road in the West Bank.

The West Bank is not part of Israel. Israel is the occupying power in the West Bank, and as the occupier is doing things that occupiers typically do (but that doesn't make it right). For example, the Argentinians prevented Falklanders from driving on certain roads at certain times of the day. Did that make Argentina a race-based country?

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:25

#31

KenS

OO may not be a troll. But we are 'discussing' ridiculous stuff now.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:30

#32

Cueball

Ridiculous. For one thing, there have been fairly lengthy studies which have articulated how the Basic Laws of Israel, directly impugn the rights of Arabs who are Israeli citizens. I suggest you research those studies, rather than continuing the embarass yourself here.

As for the liminal differences, as to what is Israel, and what is not Israel, that makes absolutely no difference, since the policies are racist and applied by the state of Israel. It makes no difference, if the racist policy is conducted external to the recognized borders of a country -- it is still a racist policy.

And in point of fact, Israel has no borders. This is a fact. There are no Israeli laws that define its borders. Just like there is no constitution that establishes whether or not Israel is a religious state, or a secular one, only a collection of "basic laws" that serve as a basis for a legal system.

The attempt to create a unified constitution was put on hold a long time ago, largely because the secularists, could not reconcile their differences with non-secularists.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:34

#33

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Such blatant lies. If you, Objected Observer, can't be honest about the essential nature of Israel, the self-proclaimed Jewish State, Zionism, a supremacist ideology, and the occupation which is also a colonization of Arab land and the dispossession, ghettoization, and subjugation, dehumanization, and brutalization of those same Arabs, it is no wonder your discourse here is childish, juvenile, and racist in itself.

Sadly, your pathetic and racist perspective seems the predominant viewpoint in Israel today. Worse, the opinion leaders in North America and Europe are so cowed by the juvenile but mass opionion such as yours that they have failed in their humanitarian obiligation AGAIN!

Once more a racist, genocidal state is not confronted but appeased by the West.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:34

#34

ceti

Trolling is actually part of Israel's official internet propaganda offensive, so beware when arguing with certain sock puppets on internet forums.

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:40

#35

Objective Observer

FM, one of your points was that it's wrong for Israel to describe itself a (I'm using your words here) "Jewish State".

Just out of curiosity, is it wrong for Iran to describe itself as the "Islamic" Republic of Iran? I don't think it is, since most people in Iran are Muslims, and it's none of my business anyway what Iran calls itself.

By the same token, why should you care if Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", if they actually do (officially anyway).

Thu, 2009-01-01 15:41

#36

Unionist

In Israel, things are often seen more clearly:

Quote:
Let's let old Carter be, so he may let sleeping warriors lie; he will not be back. The contents of his words, however, should not be ignored. "Apartheid," he said, "apartheid" - a dark, scary word coined by Afrikaners and meaning segregation, racial segregation.

What does he want from us, that evil man: What do we have to do with apartheid? Does a separation fence constitute separation? Do separate roads for Jewish settlers and Palestinians really separate? Are Palestinian enclaves between Jewish settlements Bantustans?

There is no hint of similarity between South Africa and Israel, and only a sick mind could draw such shadowy connections between them. Roadblocks and inspections at every turn; licenses and permits for every little matter; the arbitrary seizure of land; special privileges in water use; cheap, hard labor; forming and uniting families by bureaucratic whim - none of these are apartheid, in any way. They are an incontrovertible security necessity, period.

The white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened - a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And [b]what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid[/b]. Nor does it even solve the problem of fear: Today, everyone knows that all apartheid will inevitably reach its sorry end.

From an article entitled [i]"Yes, It Is Apartheid"[/i], by Yossi Sarid, in [u][url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977947.html]Ha'aretz[/url][/u].

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:01

#37

Michelle

Objective Observer wrote:

A fellow babbler named Martin Dufresne has this as his tag line:

"Nuke the Knesset"

I don't understand how that statement isn't loaded full of racism and hate...

He has already been admonished by a moderator for it. Are you here to shadow-moderate or are you here to participate? If the former, then buzz off - we have enough moderators and you haven't been appointed as one of them. If the latter, then let the moderators do their job and stop derailing threads with arguments about whether other people are breaking the rules.

That goes for everyone else, too. It would be so great if a moderator could intervene and ask for restraint without everyone turning it into a 50 post argument about whether the moderator is in order or not. If you want to talk about the the subject of the thread, talk about it. If you want to talk about something else, go elsewhere and talk about it.

Thanks.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:05

#38

Objective Observer

Michelle wrote:
Are you here to shadow-moderate or are you here to participate?

To participate. So Michelle what do you object to about the OP?

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:08

#39

Unionist

LOL.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:15

#40

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Objective Observer wrote:

By the same token, why should you care if Israel calls itself the "Jewish State", if they actually do (officially anyway).

Because it goes to the racist ideology of Zionism - the official ideology of the racist state. If you were born inside the current state of Israel and you were ethnically cleansed when it was created, you have no right to return to your ancestral homeland if you are an Arab. But if you are Jew, born and raised in Toronto, who has never ventured outisde of the city, you can go to Israel and have citizenship. That is racism. It is the same ideology common among white supramcists demanding a "christian state" or a "white state".

And in fact, some white supremacists, like Zionist supremacists, say anyone is welcome to live in a separate white state so long as they accept the values of the state which is the inherent superiority of the founders.

The essence of the conflict is racism and oppression and no matter what rationalizations you construct to dance around, that is what you're defending.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:20

#41

Objective Observer

OK, so anybody who is a supporter of Israel in its current fight with Hamas is a racist? Is that your position? Because Jack Layton supports Israel's right to defend itself in this particular conflict. And I'm very sure that Jack Layton is not a racist.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:30

#42

Hoodeet

Unionist certainly was being restrained. I agree. My response
to Unionist did not suggest that s/he was the one being hateful; I was
simply responding to Unionist's correction of my use of the term "ad
hominem". And I was expressing my personal distaste for name-calling,
which serves only to vent and raise the temperature of a
discussion.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:31

#43

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Racist or misinformed. I certainly was a supporter of Israel back in the 70s and 80s. I was misinformed. Only when I looked beyond the headlines and approached the issue as a human being rather than as a consumer of information for mass consumption did I come to realize there was a racial and power dynamic to the question.

I also support Israel's right to defend itself if attacked as I support my own right to defend myself if attacked. But Israel has not been attacked. It is the most heavily armed and militarized nation in the region and it has weapons of mass destruction. It has waged war against its indigenous population and against all of its neighbours.

The current assualt is against a civilian population, that same indigenous population, that is lightly armed and no match for Israel's war machine.

To claim the rockets fired from Gaza is an assualt is to claim the punches of a victim against her attacker are an assualt. It is ludricous and just another indignity against the real victim.

And be aware, the only reason Gaza is caged, starved, and brutalized is because they are a non-Jewish population that has refused to relent on claims to ancestral homelands and equal rights within that homeland.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:42

#44

Michelle

OO, see what FM just posted? I agree with it. Since you were wondering about my point of view on the subject.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:43

#45

Hoodeet

(and to Frustrated Mess's reply)

Jack Layton is the leader of
a party that's slavering after power within the established system and
even if he believed the premise of Zionism is racist he would be nuts
to state it publicly. The official line is "Israel's right to
exist", a mantra for all politicians.

In a way, even defenders of
Palestinian rights have to utter it. Reminds me of the msm
articles about Nicaragua in the 80's: all references to the
Sandinista government had to have the modifier "Soviet-backed",
"Cuban-backed", "Marxist" or some such epithet, attached.

I
know, too, that the seemingly harmless mantra may well be taken as a
code that reinforces the hegemonic powers' justification of
"Israeli policy, right or wrong". And I also believe that we have
to keep pushing all the political parties, providing a counterweight to
the pro-Israel-right-or-wrong (IRoW) party heavies, but I doubt we'll
ever get a clear and unequivocal pro-Palestinian statement from them
until economic pressures bear fruit. What those economic
pressures may be --success of the boycott of Israel, changes in the
pro-Western Arab world, a complete meltdown in the US, peak oil
resulting in a clearer position of China vis a vis its oil suppliers,
whatever-- I won't even venture a guess.

I wish it were as simple as getting Jack Layton or even Iggy to change their public mantras.

Thu, 2009-01-01 16:46

#46

Hoodeet

Thanks for a very clear and pithy summary of the problem, FM.

Thu, 2009-01-01 17:03

#47

HUAC

A little perspective, perhaps?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-hamas-gaza

19 deaths in six+ years reads like a bathtub drowning stat; or a fraction thereof.

Thu, 2009-01-01 17:15

#48

Cueball

Hoodeet wrote:

Unionist certainly was being restrained. I agree. My response to Unionist did not suggest that s/he was the one being hateful; I was simply responding to Unionist's correction of my use of the term "ad hominem". And I was expressing my personal distaste for name-calling, which serves only to vent and raise the temperature of a discussion.

You can be nice if you like. But I see no reason to be polite about a misinformed world view that enables racism. Frankly, I am tired of it. I have been patiently explaining the in's and out's of this situation for years, and while not always polite, my tolerance at this juncture is particularly low.

The erstwhile justification for the massive attrocity that is taking place at this moment is so thin that anyone defending it is like a man entering bar where half the staff are not wearing any clothes, and later trying to explain to his wife that he had not visited a strip joint.

Such obfuscation of fact deserves ridicule.

Thu, 2009-01-01 17:28

#49

Ghislaine

HUAC wrote:

A little perspective, perhaps?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-hamas-gaza

19 deaths in six+ years reads like a bathtub drowning stat; or a fraction thereof.

Yes, they obviously don't matter. Geez, what are the victims' familes complaining about?

Thu, 2009-01-01 17:37

#50

Cueball

Yes, and I suppose we should have flattened Oka, because someone there shot a member of SQ. Get real.

I have often disagreed with you, but I never thought you were morally dishonest. Now it is clear that you are.

[Edited for the sake of propriety]

Thu, 2009-01-01 17:49

#51

HUAC

Ghislaine wrote:
HUAC wrote:

A little perspective, perhaps?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-hamas-gaza

19 deaths in six+ years reads like a bathtub drowning stat; or a fraction thereof.

Yes, they obviously don't matter. Geez, what are the victims' familes complaining about?

I'll bite. Bathtubs w/o lifeguards?

Pages

Topic locked